Kerala High Court Orders Reconsideration of Eviction from Temple Land, Citing Jurisdictional Lapses - 2025-04-07

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Mandates Re-evaluation of Eviction Order Concerning Temple Land

Ernakulam, Kerala - The Kerala High Court has set aside an order by the District Collector of Malappuram regarding the eviction of alleged encroachers from the property of Thanalur Sree Narasimhamoorthi Temple . In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, a division bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. directed the District Collector to reconsider the matter, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of jurisdictional and procedural aspects under relevant land reform and religious endowment laws.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by the President and Secretary of the Thanalur Sree Narasimhamoorthi Temple Committee, seeking to overturn the District Collector's order dated October 29, 2013. This order had partially declined to invoke the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to evict respondents 8 to 19 and others from temple property. The petitioners also sought mandates for eviction and a declaration that purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal in favor of respondents 8 to 19 were illegal.

The temple committee argued that a significant portion of temple land had been encroached upon. Earlier, the High Court in 2012 (W.P.(C)No.8917 of 2012) had directed the District Collector to investigate and take action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. However, the District Collector's subsequent order (Ext.P5) acknowledged illegal occupants but noted that some had obtained purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal, directing the Temple Committee to appeal these certificates instead of initiating full eviction proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act for all occupants.

Arguments and Counter-Arguments

The petitioners contended that purchase certificates obtained by respondents were invalid, citing a previous Kerala High Court decision (Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair). They sought a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to evict all encroachers and restore the properties to the Devaswom Board.

Respondents 14 and 19, along with others, filed counter affidavits opposing the petition, asserting their rights based on purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They presented these certificates (Exts.R11(a) to R11(d)) and basic tax receipts to support their claims of legitimate landholding.

The Malabar Devaswom Board, represented by its Commissioner (6th respondent), also filed a counter affidavit highlighting the large-scale encroachment issues affecting temple lands under its purview. They argued that many land assignments by the Land Tribunal were indiscriminate and potentially invalid, especially if not based on valid tenancies predating April 1, 1964, and without proper verification of Devaswom records. The Board emphasized that alienations of Devaswom land require Commissioner sanction under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which was absent in this case. They also pointed out Section 94A of the same Act, equating Devaswom lands to Government lands for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously examined provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Referencing the Supreme Court's stance in A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board , the bench underscored the judiciary's duty to protect temple properties from encroachment and misappropriation.

The judgment also relied on Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair , which highlighted the High Court’s role as guardian of Deities and its inherent jurisdiction in matters concerning temple property. This case reiterated principles from Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala , affirming the government's "visitorial" power to prevent fraudulent or improvident transfers of Devaswom land.

Referring to Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala , the court reiterated that the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides a specific procedure for land tribunals to issue purchase certificates, emphasizing the necessity of following due process and verifying conditions for valid tenancy, particularly in relation to exempted categories under Section 3 of the Act, which includes temple lands.

The bench noted a critical lapse in the District Collector's Ext.P5 order: while acknowledging illegal occupants and purchase certificates, it did not adequately address the jurisdictional concerns related to Devaswom land and the validity of purchase certificates issued potentially without proper scrutiny of exemption clauses and Devaswom records.

Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment

> “In Ext.P5 order dated 29.10.2013, though the 2nd respondent District Collector found that there are illegal occupants in the property of Thanalur Sree Narasimhamoorthi Temple , since it was noticed that some of them have obtained purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal, the revenue authorities are directed to initiate land conservancy proceedings as against those encroachers who have not obtained purchase certificates. In respect of those encroachers, who obtained purchase certificates, the petitioners are directed to approach the Appellate Authority under the Land Reforms Act for cancellation of purchase certificates.”

Decision and Way Forward

Setting aside the District Collector's Ext.P5 order, the High Court directed a reconsideration of the matter. The District Collector is instructed to conduct a fresh hearing, providing opportunities to the temple committee, temple Executive Officer, and respondents (encroachers and legal heirs). Crucially, the court mandated the District Collector to trace and examine the Land Tribunal files pertaining to the purchase certificates (Exts.R11(a) to R11(d)) and allow all parties to inspect and obtain copies.

The District Collector has been given a timeline of four months to make a reasoned decision, taking into account statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and evidence presented, thereby ensuring a more thorough and legally sound approach to the issue of encroachment on Thanalur Sree Narasimhamoorthi Temple land.

- Legal Journalist Report